Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
It is very hard to debate on this without talking about religion. Basically because the way the brain works is not completely understood. We don't know how a "thought" is formed in the head of a living being.
So, comparing particle determinism to "free will", the point of the topic, seems innacurate to me. Not everything is matter.
Unless someone here is seriously claiming that quantum randomness is deterministic (and hence predictable).
It could be that things at quantum level are as deterministic as macroscopic objects like planets, but because our tools at present aren't efficient enough, they appear to be random. If we have better microscopes (or something) some day and can film things at a few septillion FPS, we might see order there.
While I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics, I wouldn't be surprised if the ability to predict the outcome of many phenomena, such as quantum entanglement, would break some law of physics, such as being able to transfer information between two points faster than c. (Because if you could predict eg. the spin of an entangled particle, you could choose which entangled particles from a group to measure and use this to transfer information to their paired quanta, which may be physically located at a large distance. This transmission would be immediate rather than having a delay of c, thus breaking the fundamental law of physics.)
There's no such thing as intelligence without matter, and therefore all choice is bound by what our earthly bodies and brains are provided with as an open system. Human beings can be unpredictable, shocking and innovative but what they can't be is completely causally detached from their environment.
While I do respect the opinion of previous posters using scientific arguments, I consider the existence of free will a philosophical question and its answer is outside the scope of science. No scientific "evidence" or any finite amount of experiments is capable of proving natural laws, whether the scientific method crafted by humans can accurately predict the laws of the entire universe is ultimately tied to an individual's personal beliefs, no matter how clear it may seem to the human mind.
It doesn't matter if a scientific theory uses vector calculus, partial differential equations, tensors and other advanced mathematical concepts to explain nature, it's still based on strong assumptions and mathematics is true only if its axioms are. Because of this, despite its numerous applications and convincing arguments, science isn't philosophically any better than religion.
So, I'd rather answer the question "Does God play dice?" with "Who are we to say what God plays?". That said, I'm a Roman Catholic, and I believe free will exists.
No scientific "evidence" or any finite amount of experiments is capable of proving natural laws, whether the scientific method crafted by humans can accurately predict the laws of the entire universe is ultimately tied to an individual's personal beliefs
No, it isn't. Either all natural laws governing this universe can be studied and determined from within this universe, or they can't. It's not a question of opinion.
That's as silly as saying something like "whether energy exists is a question of belief". No, it isn't. It either exists or not, and beliefs and opinions don't change that fact.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Decisions are based on will, aren't they?
But sometimes you do what you can realize, while some things you do you don't realize, though can't stop doing, even if you consider they are somehow wrong. You can feel some alien will leading your actions. One more ground for your actions is emotions.
So, we see 3 grounds for your actions:
1. Your own will, based on realization (brain determination).
2. Alien will, not based on anything logical (like, psychopathic behaviour, but actually anyone may act like that in speciffic situations. The matter of final rightness of such actions is a different one)
3. Emotions.
Can we even speak of free will when the most independent of these 3 is totally deterministic on intellect level, environment, some little circumstances & emotions also?
The only thing looking free is ability to CHOOSE in some key situations of your life. And this choise depends on your conscience. Which ALSO determines your will, lol.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
There's no such thing as intelligence without matter, and therefore all choice is bound by what our earthly bodies and brains are provided with as an open system.
There might be heavenly/spiritual bodies that control our earthly bodies.
Warp wrote:
No, it isn't. Either all natural laws governing this universe can be studied and determined from within this universe, or they can't. It's not a question of opinion.
But it could be that the natural laws are not laws, but wills instead, like I explained on page 1. Many people agree that humans, animals and insects move because of will, so perhaps all the other things in the universe also move because of will, and not because of laws.
But it could be that the natural laws are not laws, but wills instead, like I explained on page 1. Many people agree that humans, animals and insects move because of will, so perhaps all the other things in the universe also move because of will, and not because of laws.
It's always amusing to see how you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
You actually remind me of Charlene Werner.
Joined: 11/30/2008
Posts: 650
Location: a little city in the middle of nowhere
Honestly, I think that humans are pretty much deterministic, otherwise, A lot of people I know would be out of a future job (they study medicine at my university) I don't think belief has much to do with anything, apart from the placebo effect in this field. Medicine works, but it wouldn't if we didn't know how humans worked first.
Otherwise, As far as free will is concerned, I still think it exists, even if we are deterministic or not. Free will is so poorly defined anyway.
No scientific "evidence" or any finite amount of experiments is capable of proving natural laws, whether the scientific method crafted by humans can accurately predict the laws of the entire universe is ultimately tied to an individual's personal beliefs
No, it isn't. Either all natural laws governing this universe can be studied and determined from within this universe, or they can't. It's not a question of opinion.
That's as silly as saying something like "whether energy exists is a question of belief". No, it isn't. It either exists or not, and beliefs and opinions don't change that fact.
Here's my definition of "free will".
Let say there's a decision tree where each node is a decision, and its children are the outcomes of each decision. Let suppose the decision tree only have nodes that are reachable from an individual (for example, if a choice kills you, you can't make any more choices after this point).
The "will" of a person is the heuristic function he or she uses to pick the next best choice according to said function.
"free will" is then to always have the freedom to change this heuristic function to whichever one you want, so that nothing impedes you to reach any node of the decision tree. For any node, such heuristic function exists and it's "pick the choice that reachs this node".
So all discussions about "free will" is about if there's a barrier of the subconscious that partially disallows a person to change his will, for example, the so-called "survival instinct".
It's known that many animals have "hard-wired" behavior and react to events by "instinct", and as such are not considered to have free will.
It's known that man works by instinct at certain situations, and that his instinct can be overcome by training. For example, that CIA training to avoid turning around when you are touched in your back.
So in some sense, "free will" can be achieved in humans by training. It also can be temporarily lost by chemical/electrical impulses such as drugs or body secretions.
EDIT: It looks like SMBC just drew a comic about this. Coincidence, or a chemical shift? :P
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2358#comic
People here have pretty much expressed what I think already, but I think I can add a subtle point on the "non-deterministic" nature of that quantum shit.
I could be wrong, but I think it's only non-deterministic from our frame of reference, much like we have free will from our frame of reference. I think that there is far more information in "reality" that we don't (can't) have access to. Just because *we* can't predict something doesn't mean it is truly unpredictable. In other words, stuff that we can't perceive could be determining quantum outcomes, but since we can't view the input we can't predict the output.
It's just a theory though. Just like gravity. Tomorrow we might start floating around because gravity will stop behaving in a predictable manner. Science is identical to prognostication, but it has an amazing track record of successfully predicting results. That, however, is no guarantee of future success.
I could be wrong, but I think it's only non-deterministic from our frame of reference, much like we have free will from our frame of reference. I think that there is far more information in "reality" that we don't (can't) have access to. Just because *we* can't predict something doesn't mean it is truly unpredictable. In other words, stuff that we can't perceive could be determining quantum outcomes, but since we can't view the input we can't predict the output.
As I have said, I'm by no means any kind of expert whatsoever on QM, but my understanding is that the stochastic nature of many quantum phenomena are truly random and non-deterministic. This does not mean "too hard to predict", but "not predictable". Literally. It cannot be predicted. (Also, if I understand correctly, being able to predict some of these phenomena might cause the breaking of some of the most fundamental laws of physics.)
It's just a theory though. Just like gravity.
Avoid confusing the colloquial term "theory" and the scientific term "theory" because they are certainly not the same thing. (The colloquial term means the same as "conjecture" or "hypothesis". A more apt term for the scientific term would perhaps be "model".)
There have been many people making models of QM based on classical stochastic mechanics (with a classical stochastic force). There is also Bohm's interpretation of QM which treats QM as normal particle subjected to a (random) quantum potential. There is a theorem that says no realistic, local hidden-variable theory can reproduce all the results of QM. There is even work on simulating the results of QM in a perfectly classical computer using stochastic classical mechanics in just such a way despite that theorem, because the theorem makes assumptions that are incorrect.
What is more, there are many different interpretations of QM, some of them not even having a defined notion of history or past -- hence, no true way to talk about "randomness" (as "randomness" means that an event is causally disconnected from its past -- no past, no randomness).
The result is that any claims about QM being stochastic or random are nonsense -- nevertheless, many respectable physicists do just that. Any such talk is based on unsupported assumptions about the nature of the universe at the quantum level. The bottom line is that QM is a logical positivist theory -- it describes what can be measured -- and a statistical theory -- the results it gives are statistical. You can't reverse it to infer what "goes on" on the quantum level because the information isn't relevant to, or contained in, QM.
Earlier I mentioned that interpretations of QM are pseudo-science -- this is the reason why: as long as they give the same results as QM (and as long as there is no experiment that can tell it apart from QM), any interpretation will make unsupported and untestable assumptions about how the world works "down there".
What is more, there are many different interpretations of QM, some of them not even having a defined notion of history or past -- hence, no true way to talk about "randomness" (as "randomness" means that an event is causally disconnected from its past -- no past, no randomness).
The result is that any claims about QM being stochastic or random are nonsense
I think that the relevant question is not so much whether quantum effects are random, but whether they are predictable. The notion of determinism is that everything is subject to an absolutely strict cause-and-effect chain of events: Every single event has a unique cause that unambiguously produced that event in that exact way. Hence if you could take into account all possible causes in a certain situation, you could predict what will happen due to the strict cause-and-effect chain.
However, if there are events that are physically impossible to predict (ie. not just "very hard to predict", but outright impossible, even in theory), that means there is no deterministic cause-and-effect chain. You say "no past, no randomness". I would also say "no past, no cause" (because a causal relationship requires by definition a strict timeline).
Am I correct in assuming that if the so-called quantum entanglement phenomenon does indeed exist, and that measuring for example the spin of one of the particles determines the spin of its entangled pair (regardless of their physical separation), and that if one could somehow predict the spin of the particle in advance, this could be used to transmit information (by choosing between a group of entangled particles) with no delay whatsoever regardless of distance?
What is more, there are many different interpretations of QM, some of them not even having a defined notion of history or past -- hence, no true way to talk about "randomness" (as "randomness" means that an event is causally disconnected from its past -- no past, no randomness).
May I ask for further clarifications on this? I mean psi(t) = exp(Ĥ i t / h) psi(0) clearly depends on time and the initial state and thus, there would be at least one notion of time assimmetry by looking at quantum states, no matter how someone may interpret this. Further, wouldn't an interpretation that has no causality assimmetry mean that every quantum event state(A)->state(B) could also happen as state(B)->state(A) and wouldn't this only hold together with the second law of thermodynamics if all of them didn't change entropy and so, are all reversible?
I think that the relevant question is not so much whether quantum effects are random, but whether they are predictable.
QM has no say in this either, being a theory that predicts outcomes as probabilities. We simply don't know at present if quantum effects truly are unpredictable or if they would be predictable with information we can't access at present. The strictly positivist reply would be "yes" to unpredictability; and so would be the reply of anyone basing their opinion on Bell's theorem or other no-go theorems. But either case suffers from assumptions that can't be justified with current evidence (although this evidence is very tempting).
Warp wrote:
Am I correct in assuming that if the so-called quantum entanglement phenomenon does indeed exist, and that measuring for example the spin of one of the particles determines the spin of its entangled pair (regardless of their physical separation), and that if one could somehow predict the spin of the particle in advance, this could be used to transmit information (by choosing between a group of entangled particles) with no delay whatsoever regardless of distance?
To be annoyingly strict, I have to say "maybe" to the question of entanglement; most experiments about entanglement assume QM to be true, hence explain everything under those assumptions. Those that don't are usually those testing no-go theorems, such as the aforementioned Bell's theorem -- and they aren't good enough (at present) to rule out theories that explain "entanglement" by other means.
p4wn3r wrote:
May I ask for further clarifications on this? I mean psi(t) = exp(Ĥ i t / h) psi(0) clearly depends on time and the initial state
You are assuming that t means time -- in most interpretations, it does, and it is even associated with what we call time at the macroscopic (classic) scale. In one particular interpretation (I can't for the life of me remember the name; and yes, it is one of the more esoteric ones), all possibilities (and all "instants") exist "simultaneously", and t is a measure of how "far", and thus how likely, each possibility is from another possibility. Classical time is a product of the mind (I said it was an esoteric one...), which stitches together the "instants" in order to make a consistent narrative. Most physicists don't subscribe to this interpretation, but a few (very few) do.
p4wn3r wrote:
and thus, there would be at least one notion of time assimmetry by looking at quantum states, no matter how someone may interpret this. Further, wouldn't an interpretation that has no causality assimmetry mean that every quantum event state(A)->state(B) could also happen as state(B)->state(A) and wouldn't this only hold together with the second law of thermodynamics if all of them didn't change entropy and so, are all reversible?
Unless there is a clear temporal asymmetry of the system (magnetic fields go here, unless you swap charge and parity too*), every quantum event state(A)->state(B) does happen as state(B)->state(A). Thermodynamics are for thermodynamic systems -- quantum systems generally don't apply -- hence talk of entropy is meaningless.
* See CPT symmetry.
In a more modern description, the emergence of the classical world comes about as a result of decoherence -- a shifting of wavefunction phases that causes the interference (quantum) effects to disappear; this, along with statistical mechanics, would lead to the second law of thermodynamics.
and thus, there would be at least one notion of time assimmetry by looking at quantum states, no matter how someone may interpret this. Further, wouldn't an interpretation that has no causality assimmetry mean that every quantum event state(A)->state(B) could also happen as state(B)->state(A) and wouldn't this only hold together with the second law of thermodynamics if all of them didn't change entropy and so, are all reversible?
Unless there is a clear temporal asymmetry of the system (magnetic fields go here, unless you swap charge and parity too*), every quantum event state(A)->state(B) does happen as state(B)->state(A). Thermodynamics are for thermodynamic systems -- quantum systems generally don't apply -- hence talk of entropy is meaningless.
* See CPT symmetry.
In a more modern description, the emergence of the classical world comes about as a result of decoherence -- a shifting of wavefunction phases that causes the interference (quantum) effects to disappear; this, along with statistical mechanics, would lead to the second law of thermodynamics.
Yeah, I recalled reading something about symmetry of physical laws before, it must be CPT symmetry. Well, I just asked because the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only time assymmetric law I'm aware of, and I also remembered an operator in quantum mechanics satisfied a condition to be consistent with it, probably it has nothing to do with entropy then, since you said it's undefined there. Thanks a lot.
Am I correct in assuming that if the so-called quantum entanglement phenomenon does indeed exist, and that measuring for example the spin of one of the particles determines the spin of its entangled pair (regardless of their physical separation), and that if one could somehow predict the spin of the particle in advance, this could be used to transmit information (by choosing between a group of entangled particles) with no delay whatsoever regardless of distance?
Quantum Physics, since Schrödinger, is all about looking at the fanciest and romantic way to tell you the dumbest of things.
Here's a layman explanation of spin entanglement:
Suppose you have two balls, one blue and another one red. Then, without looking at them, you put one in one box, then put the other in another box. Note that you don't know anything about which ball is in which box.
Now, suppose you open a box and it happens to have a blue ball. Now you know that the red ball is in the other box! And you didn't have to even LOOK AT THAT BOX. I'm the next Einstein!!!!!1!1eleven
Of course, that's stupid. Now let's say that you move a box to the other side of the galaxy, then you open it and find a blue ball. Now you know the color of the other ball IN A BOX THAT IS AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GALAXY!!! ZOMG, MY KNOWLEDGE TRAVELS FASTER THAN LIGHT!
That's stupid, too, but that's the kind of idiocy that can be sold to newspapers so that you can spend the rest of your life thinking on new ways to put fancy names to the dumbest of things.
You managed to mangle the quotes and tags quite horribly on your post. You also managed to mangle the notion of entanglement quite horribly. The important points about entanglement are:
(1) The spin is a vector quantity, which can be measured along different axis and which is either -1 or +1 (photon) or -1/2 or +1/2 (electrons, protons, neutrons) in any axis you measure;
(2) you can measure the spins of the entangled particles in different, uncorrelated axis (possibly "randomly" chosen);
(3) when you do that, there will be a correlation of the values you measure;
(4) this correlation (as predicted by QM) is higher than what is possible in any local (nothing moves faster than c), realistic (spins exist and are defined all the way, before measurement), hidden variables (uses information not in QM, such as the spin of the particle along the way) theory (Bell's theorem, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox).
Experiments aren't good enough to show (4) conclusively because of many things; further, there are other limitations to these no-go theorems in the form of seemingly reasonable assumptions which ultimately can't be justified -- such as the "random" selection of the axis you want to measure the spin.
Moreover, you can't even say that for any given pair of entangled particles, you will measure spins in opposite directions; only when you do statistics with many of them you actually get the correlation. So, to refine your layman explanation: after putting two balls, one blue and one red, in boxes, you would look at the balls and see them both blue, both red or one blue and one red. Only after doing statistics you would see that the preponderance of cases are one blue and one red.
Thermodynamics are for thermodynamic systems -- quantum systems generally don't apply -- hence talk of entropy is meaningless.
This may be a good article to read about the subject.
I have wondered about the seeming contradiction of there being no "arrow of time" in quantum physics even though the total entropy of a closed system defines a clear arrow of time unambiguously. I still don't understand the explanation, though.
I could be wrong, but I think it's only non-deterministic from our frame of reference, much like we have free will from our frame of reference. I think that there is far more information in "reality" that we don't (can't) have access to. Just because *we* can't predict something doesn't mean it is truly unpredictable. In other words, stuff that we can't perceive could be determining quantum outcomes, but since we can't view the input we can't predict the output.
As I have said, I'm by no means any kind of expert whatsoever on QM, but my understanding is that the stochastic nature of many quantum phenomena are truly random and non-deterministic. This does not mean "too hard to predict", but "not predictable". Literally. It cannot be predicted. (Also, if I understand correctly, being able to predict some of these phenomena might cause the breaking of some of the most fundamental laws of physics.)
It's just a theory though. Just like gravity.
Avoid confusing the colloquial term "theory" and the scientific term "theory" because they are certainly not the same thing. (The colloquial term means the same as "conjecture" or "hypothesis". A more apt term for the scientific term would perhaps be "model".)
IANAP either, and I don't pretend to make informed conclusions based on anything that could be considered academically rigorous.
That said, since this is the internet, I feel i must defend my words here :P
First of all, you say "This does not mean "too hard to predict", but "not predictable". Literally. It cannot be predicted."
I completely agree that something cannot be predicted. By us. From our frame of reference. It is totally possible that there is un-knowable information. Possible, even, that there exists information so un-knowable that it is impossible for us to ever "scientifically" prove that it exists... and even more impossible for us to read. So, in my mind, the theoretically "random" nature of QM does not contradict my feeling that from some frame of reference everything is predictable. Call me a romantic.
Second, I find people who say "OMG the theory of evolution is just a theory" to be annoying too. However, I don't think my use of the word here is the same thing. In fact, go ahead and replace it with "model" and my point still stands. We only have a "model" of gravity. It's pretty fucking solid! But still, there is no certainty that it will continue to be valid in the future. That's the raw bit about the future: it hasn't happened yet. Or, should I say, it hasn't happened yet from our point of reference. Basically, my point is that "science" is really based on faith. I do readily concede though, that since it can actually perform miracles, unlike most faiths, it is a very worthwhile faith. I haven't yet padded my ceiling in fear that gravity will stop working tomorrow.
tl;dr
jimsfriend, i tried making this invisible but failed
However, if there are events that are physically impossible to predict (ie. not just "very hard to predict", but outright impossible, even in theory), that means there is no deterministic cause-and-effect chain. You say "no past, no randomness". I would also say "no past, no cause" (because a causal relationship requires by definition a strict timeline).
Keep in mind that the past exists just in the memory, it doesn't exist in reality, so there can't be any real causes there.
Warp wrote:
I have wondered about the seeming contradiction of there being no "arrow of time" in quantum physics even though the total entropy of a closed system defines a clear arrow of time unambiguously.
The smaller things you observe, the faster they move, so at quantum level the past and future are almost compressed into the present, like in FF8. A similar thing happens when you observe very large things like galaxies, in that case time also seems to disappear because we can't directly observe their motion. Hope this helps.
alden wrote:
Second, I find people who say "OMG the theory of evolution is just a theory" to be annoying too.
When people say that the theory of evolution is just a theory, they usually mean that it's just a theory, ie. not a scientific theory.
One thing I have against the Quantum Randomness as Free Will argument is even though it makes you slightly unpredictable, it doesn't make you any more unpredictable than any other large scale physical phenomenon.
Take a billiards table for instance. Classical, chaotic, and totally predictable. Quantum effects can have an affect on the cue ball and slightly change its path. But no one would argue that the cue ball has free will.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
